Some obligations are pretty straight forward and easy to comprehend, but some are not so cut and dry. In the group I am GMing, one of the players has a droid scientist/doctor with a 15 point obligation of Responsibility and a 10 pt Dutybound. I suggested maybe the responsibility is to the other PCs, who saved him from being scrapped in their backgrounds, and the Dutybound could be for his doctor's oath to help others when he can. But if I were to roll on the obligation tables and his obligations would come up, how would those come into play during a game? And how could those obligations be raised or lowered during play?

Also, how would the magnitude of each affect anything? If his Responsibility is lowered, would he feel less inclined to help his companions?

Good question, and I don't have any ideas...this is a hurdle for me as well. We have a medical droid in our group with similar obligations...in fact, he is 'responsible' for one of the other players in the party. I'm eager to hear what others have to say on this. I really want to incorporate the players obligations into the Beyond the Rim adventure...to customize it for the players' characters and give some solid opportunities to reduce some of that obligation.

I'm wary of letting players hold obligation to each other, at least starting obligation, precisely because it muddies up the water like this.

In the case of your Doctor I'd suggest keeping the Dutybound obligation the way it is; if it triggers during play (when rolling a double) you can say it's some angry person from his past that wants revenge because the Doctor used his skills to heal a thoroughly bad person who later went on to kill someone close to the angry person. The Dutybound obligation would ensure that the Doctor would have to heal any injured or sick person in front of him, regardless of who they are or what they've done, so this could be a natural source of conflict.

When it comes to the Responibility obligation my advice would be that you sit down with the player and talk about changing it to someone or something else that isn't a fellow player. If this isn't an option, I'd suggest that when it triggers some sort of threat towards that player emerges forcing your Doctor do deal with it - possibly even without the other character's knowledge, if he judged that to be in his best interest. It could also be in the form of a windfall or other beneficial thing befalling them that the Doctor would have to forsake so that the character he's obligated to gets it instead.

I've got a player with responsibility, who encountered a dying Jedi who gives her a Jedi teaching artefact, and asks her to find the Jedi and give it to them. She is therefore responsible for protecting the item. It is only activated by somebody who has force powers, so could be a great justification for learning the force powers if she ever buys the force using specialisation. Obviosly the stress part of the obligation is the fear of being court in possession of the item and executed as a Jedi by the imperials.

Although never explicitly stated, I think the implication behind Obligations is that they're outside the party... unless they reach an unhealthy level. You should not need an Responsibility of 15 to feel the need to help your fellow PCS... Now, if his "Responsibility' to the other players is so extreme that he puts himself at risk to "keep them safe," constantly tries to prevent them from dangerous plans, etc... Game on. (And a reduction in strain threshold is easily explained by his frustration with his lack of success, while a crew-wide trigger probably indicates that everyone is getting fed up!)

Similarly, a doctor (droid or not) should not need Dutybound to heal others... But Dutybound to healing others could mean that it's so important to the character that he will disrupt group plans and put his life in danger to help others.

With Dutybound, Family, Oath, and Responsibility, it's really easy to confuse Obligation with Motivation. If the player is describing a relationship to a person or group where the character could just cut ties and walk away at any time, then it's probably a Motivation. To be an Obligation, "cut and run" isn't really an option, the problem will just follow the character to the end of the galaxy. The player should feel at least a little bit "stuck" in an uncomfortable situation. The important thing to remember with Obligation is that failure to satisfy it should have bad consequences.

Responsibility to another PC (or the group) could work, but it would be tricky. Here's how I'd spin it: The character is uniquely positioned to protect his friend(s) from a specific threat. Perhaps he has hidden something of value from a Hutt, and that's the only thing keeping the group out of carbonite. Or he has damaging information on a dead man's switch, if anything happens to anyone in the group, it goes public. There should be some element of, "as long as I keep doing this thing, my friends are safe."

Dutybound should be more of a contractual or ritual obligation. So maybe the character agreed to a deal with some unexpected fine print, or she's a member of a guild that expects her to prove her loyalty from time to time. Whatever the circumstances, the obligation should occasionally have her thinking, "I didn't sign up for this!"

With regard to Obligation magnitude, it's not so much a measure of "how much do I care about this?" as it is "how much does this impact the group?"

With high Obligation, you're going to be triggering it more often, which means it's more of a distraction for the team. When it's low, then you've got things pretty well under control.

The Obligation magnitude can also be used as a measure of your reputation. High Obligation means word has gotten around about your problems and that might impact your interactions in certain circles.

They gave a few examples of this in "Shadows of a Black Sun," where, if the slicer had a certain amount of Obligation, that meant people had heard of her exploits and so tightened up the security of their systems. All her Computer checks in certain areas added one Setback die.

Those are some GREAT ideas. Thank you so much for sharing! Anyone else want to chime in, feel free!!

I'm having a bit of trouble with paying off Obligations.

Some, like Debt, are easy to explain, but my players have Addiction: Gambling, and Bounty. We agreed that they are step brothers and very close. One player's Gambling landed him in a lot of debt, which the other player paid back by borrowing money off a Hutt gangster.

But how do you represent a Gambling addiction being reduced? Therapy? Any other ways?

I've never been addicted to anything so I can't really relate.

Addiction is a broad category, but there are means to reduce it. Therapy can be represented by perhaps being a part of the Star Wars equivalent of a 12 step/AA program. Regular contact with a sponsor/program can be handled in downtime, and could reduce it. Any addict will tell you that the urge never really goes away. My Dad hasn't smoked in nearly 20 years, but he admits to even now feeling the craving for it... But the counterbalance is the pain of the heart attack that inspired him to quit. In the case of an alcoholic, someone could be sober for 20 years, but will self identify as an alcoholic, acknowledging that the addiction is always there. In the game, these are both examples of the addiction being reduced to about 5... It's still there, but they largely have control of it.

When addiction of say gambling comes up in the game, it could be that they feel strain in the urge to gamble is very strong, even though they know better. Maybe they are tempted by a tip on a "sure bet"... They could reduce the strain in the short term in giving I to the addiction, but ultimately it does nothing to reduce the actual addiction obligation. Becoming part of an addiction therapy network could be a way to reduce it, but as I said before its most likely handled in downtime... Where the negative effects are felt in the game session far more frequently with someone who is an addict.

I had a thread on this previously. I feel the Obligation concept is VERY muddled. I think that two entirely separate concepts are being squashed into one 'Obligation' table. One, outside pressures like debts owed to a Hutt, being hunted as a criminal, having bounty hunters on your tail, being blackmailed. Two - and entirely separate - internal motivations, like Duty to an organisation, Responsibility to a cause, loyalty to family or an abstract ideal (Oath).

I feel these should have really been 'Motivations', because it's much harder to 'buy them off' in any capacity. What does that really represent?

Also, I feel it's intended that Obligation apply to an outside agency. Connections to other PCs should be motivations. For example, our wookiee Chakk has 'comrade' motivation to explain his life-debt to the smugglers, but also 'Duty' Obligation to his military service to his people.

The Obligation magnitude can also be used as a measure of your reputation. High Obligation means word has gotten around about your problems and that might impact your interactions in certain circles.

But their definition of this is very woolly.

They even use examples of how someone's Oath to help their people wouldn't actually affect reputation in this way.

I think this is what Obligation was 'intended' to be - a kind of criminal/scum & villainy indicator. But then they included personal motivations and the whole concept got muddled.

I'm having a bit of trouble with paying off Obligations.

Some, like Debt, are easy to explain, but my players have Addiction: Gambling, and Bounty. We agreed that they are step brothers and very close. One player's Gambling landed him in a lot of debt, which the other player paid back by borrowing money off a Hutt gangster.

But how do you represent a Gambling addiction being reduced? Therapy? Any other ways?

I've never been addicted to anything so I can't really relate.

I think there are a couple different ways to spin addiction (particularly to gambling), depending on the character and how the player plays it.

In it's simplest form, my assumption would be that the character is typically "getting their fix" and that if their numbers come up, they need their fix and go out of their way to get it.

Or maybe he's addicted to winning, in which case he's usually pretty good, but if his number comes up, he's on a losing streak, stressed out, and possibly on the verge of a debt...

In this latter case, the reduction in obligation size might just indicate that he's gotten better at the game, so he's less likely to lose (and therefore, be stressed out). For a general addiction, maybe he's just trying harder to fight it. He doesn't need therapy, per so, but perhaps he's just increasingly aware of the fallout of his behavior.

Fun fact: Addicts often replace an addiction with a different addiction (one that they feel is less harmful). If the addict player is enjoys hamming it up, this is a great RPG opportunity. I knew a guy in college who traded cigarettes for social drinking, then alcoholism for religion. And I mean, hard-core, walk-around-the-campus-in-robes-and-sandals religion.

BTW, if you think about it. I'm sure you've been "addicted" to something at some point in your life, even if it's just a favorite drink or the idea of finishing a video game. Take that feeling and magnify it 100-fold.

If you wanted to deal with it in game, reducing a character's gambling addiction Obligation could come from a storyline where the character or someone they love is hurt a lot by the effects of gambling.

Like, your character was out gambling and turned off his comm and was unavailable to help someone he cares about so that person was hurt or killed. Then instead of wanting to gamble so much and giving in to it, the character might think about it but then remember the loved one who got hurt and restrain themselves.